Skip to main content
Download PDF

Comparison between high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) alternated with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and HFNO and NIV alone in patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study

European Journal of Medical Research volume 29, Article number: 248 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Non-invasive respiratory support (conventional oxygen therapy [COT], non-invasive ventilation [NIV], high-flow nasal oxygen [HFNO], and NIV alternated with HFNO [NIV + HFNO] may reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in patients with COVID-19. The outcome of patients treated non-invasively depends on clinical severity at admission. We assessed the need for IMV according to NIV, HFNO, and NIV + HFNO in patients with COVID-19 according to disease severity and evaluated in-hospital survival rates and hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay.

Methods

This cohort study was conducted using data collected between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients ≥ 18 years admitted to the ICU with a diagnosis of COVID-19 were included. Patients hospitalized for < 3 days, receiving therapy (COT, NIV, HFNO, or NIV + HFNO) for < 48 h, pregnant, and with no primary outcome data were excluded. The COT group was used as reference for multivariate Cox regression model adjustment.

Results

Of 1371 patients screened, 958 were eligible: 692 (72.2%) on COT, 92 (9.6%) on NIV, 31 (3.2%) on HFNO, and 143 (14.9%) on NIV + HFNO. The results for the patients in each group were as follows: median age (interquartile range): NIV (64 [49–79] years), HFNO (62 [55–70] years), NIV + HFNO (62 [48–72] years) (p = 0.615); heart failure: NIV (54.5%), HFNO (36.3%), NIV + HFNO (9%) (p = 0.003); diabetes mellitus: HFNO (17.6%), NIV + HFNO (44.7%) (p = 0.048). > 50% lung damage on chest computed tomography (CT): NIV (13.3%), HFNO (15%), NIV + HFNO (71.6%) (p = 0.038); SpO2/FiO2: NIV (271 [118–365] mmHg), HFNO (317 [254–420] mmHg), NIV + HFNO (229 [102–317] mmHg) (p = 0.001); rate of IMV: NIV (26.1%, p = 0.002), HFNO (22.6%, p = 0.023), NIV + HFNO (46.8%); survival rate: HFNO (83.9%), NIV + HFNO (63.6%) (p = 0.027); ICU length of stay: NIV (8.5 [5–14] days), NIV + HFNO (15 [10–25] days (p < 0.001); hospital length of stay: NIV (13 [10–21] days), NIV + HFNO (20 [15–30] days) (p < 0.001). After adjusting for comorbidities, chest CT score and SpO2/FiO2, the risk of IMV in patients on NIV + HFNO remained high (hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.17–3.04).

Conclusions

In patients with COVID-19, NIV alternating with HFNO was associated with a higher rate of IMV independent of the presence of comorbidities, chest CT score and SpO2/FiO2.

Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05579080.

Introduction

COVID-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and leads to an exacerbated inflammatory response in the host [1]. Non-invasive respiratory support (conventional oxygen therapy [COT], non-invasive ventilation [NIV], high-flow nasal oxygen [HFNO], as well as NIV alternating with HFNO [NIV + HFNO] [2, 3] are potential therapeutic strategies to prevent intubation in patients with COVID-19. However, different methods of non-invasive respiratory support may result in different outcomes, which may be associated with the baseline clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 [4,5,6,7,8] and the extent of lung damage on chest computed tomography (CT) images [9]. In addition, patients with COVID-19 present up to a twofold higher risk of failure of non-invasive respiratory support compared with patients who do not have COVID-19 when HFNO or NIV is used as first-choice ventilatory therapy [10]. NIV increases arterial oxygenation by reducing alveolar collapse and improving ventilation–perfusion matching [11]. HFNO has been used in patients with COVID-19 as an initial strategy to reduce anatomic dead space, respiratory rate, and inspiratory effort, and improve respiratory mechanics and end-expiratory lung volume, thus preventing the progression of lung injury [12]. Both NIV and HFNO can help avoid the complications associated with IMV, such as ventilator-induced lung injury, cardiovascular impairment, and infectious diseases [13]. Nevertheless, a long period of vigorous ventilatory effort during NIV or HFNO may worsen lung damage by several mechanisms gathered under the name “patient self-inflicted lung injury” (P-SILI), thus increasing the risk of intubation [14,15,16]. The use of NIV + HFNO could limit prolonged NIV sessions and thus P-SILI, without marked impairment of oxygenation between NIV sessions and with a relatively low intubation rate [17]. In addition, adjustments to the baseline conditions of patients with COVID-19 are required to properly compare NIV, HFNO, and NIV + HFNO in terms of clinical outcomes. The primary aim of this retrospective single-center study was to evaluate if NIV + HFNO increased the risk of IMV in patients with COVID-19 compared with HFNO and NIV alone. Secondary aims included the in-hospital mortality rate, and hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay for different non-invasive respiratory support strategies.

Materials and methods

Study design

This single-center, retrospective cohort study evaluated patients admitted to the ICU of Hospital Barra D'or between March 2020 and July 2021. The study protocol was approved by the Co-substantiated Ethics and Research Committee of the Research and Teaching Institute D’or, on 3 December 2021 (CAAE: 52534221.5.0000.5249). This study was registered in the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (REBEC; number RBR-3vs3gh8) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05579080). This report follows the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration guidelines [18].

Patient eligibility

The inclusion criteria for the patients were as follows: > 18 years of age; admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 confirmed by a positive result of a real-time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction assay from a nasal or pharyngeal swab or chest CT suggestive of pneumonia caused by COVID-19 who needed COT, NIV, HFNO, or NIV + HFNO. The exclusion criteria were hospital length of stay < 3 days; patients who evolved to endotracheal intubation with IMV within 48 h of hospitalization; patients on NIV and/or HFNO for < 48 h because they may need IMV for reasons not directly related to non-invasive respiratory support; patients with medical records lacking outcome variables, patients hospitalized for other causes, absence of consent, and pregnancy; and patients who received COT, NIV or HFNO after extubation.

Data collection

The following data were collected at hospital admission: demographic data (age, gender, weight, height, body mass index [BMI]), comorbidities (chronic respiratory disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, diabetes mellitus, systemic arterial hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, heart disease, structural lung disease, cerebrovascular disease, heart failure, arterial hypertension, kidney failure, immunosuppression, dementia), time from symptom onset to hospital admission, and chest CT with data on the proportion of lung involvement. Briefly, the major CT findings were described using international standard nomenclature defined by the Fleischner Society glossary and peer-reviewed literature on viral pneumonia, using terms, including ground-glass opacity, crazy-paving pattern, pleural effusion, and consolidation [19, 20]. Data on the peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) and inspired oxygen fraction (FiO2) ratio, respiratory rate (RR) and respiratory rate–oxygentation (ROX) index, the use of medication during the study (azithromycin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, or dexamethasone), renal replacement therapy, and prognostic score (SAPS-3) were also collected. Information on the duration of ventilatory support (NIV, HFNO, and NIV + HFNO), inspiratory and expiratory airway pressures during NIV and NIV + HFNO used between ventilatory supports, and highest and lowest oxygen flow during HFNO was also obtained. For all groups, details of hospital and ICU lengths of stay, as well as the time to invasive mechanical ventilation and in-hospital mortality rate were obtained from electronic medical records. All data were collected using the WPD hospital informatics system.

Definitions

Clinical decisions were made according to hospital protocol, which followed the international recommendations for clinical management of COVID-19 and the Brazilian recommendations from the Federal Health Agency [21].

At hospital admission, patients with clinical symptoms and signs of acute respiratory failure with a diagnosis of COVID-19 were allocated to a suitable facility. If the patient presented with hypoxemia (partial pressure of oxygen [PaO2] ≤ 60 mmHg or peripheral O2 saturation [SpO2] ≤ 88%), supplemental oxygen was started immediately at between 1 and 15 L/min (nasal cannula [1,2,3,4,5,6], oxygen face mask [7–9 L/min], or reservoir mask [10–15 L/min]). If work of breathing and dyspnea were detected in the absence of a need for emergency endotracheal intubation (characterized by a lowered level of consciousness; Glasgow Coma Scale score < 8, SpO2 < 88%, intense respiratory effort with the use of accessory muscles, pneumothorax not drained, and cardiac arrest), the patient was started on NIV (in cases of predominance of respiratory distress) through an interface (oronasal or full face mask) or HFNO (in cases of predominance of hypoxemia with PaO2 < 60 mmHg). The minimum exposure to therapy was at least 48 h for all groups, and at least 180 min/day (continuously or 2–3 times per day) in the NIV group or 24 h/day in the HFNO group. If the patient presented with persistent hypoxemia (SpO2 < 93% with supplementary oxygen until 15 L/min in a reservoir mask) during the NIV intervals, HFNO was applied (Additional file 1: Fig. S1).

NIV through a Puritan Bennet 840 ventilator was first applied continuously. based on clinical improvement, NIV was reduced to 2–3 times per day, up to 240 min each session. Time under NIV was reduced progressively until weaning. Supplementary oxygen therapy was given after NIV if necessary to maintain SpO2 > 90% via a nasal catheter (1–5 L/min), a simple oxygen mask (6–10 L/min), or a reservoir mask (6–15 L/min). HFNO (Vapotherm or Optiflow device according to availability) was used according to the level of flow and oxygen inspired fraction and was reduced progressively until weaning.

Failure of non-invasive respiratory support was defined as the need for endotracheal intubation with IMV according to the following criteria: clinical decision by the medical team; hypoxemia (PaO2 ≤ 60 mmHg) and/or acidosis (pH ≤ 7.35); low level of consciousness; worsening of the work of breathing; cardiopulmonary resuscitation event; intolerance to therapy and/or face mask, or other [21].

Outcomes

The primary outcome was the need for IMV in those patients with COVID-19 who had previously undergone NIV, HFNO, or NIV + HFNO. The secondary aims were to describe the in-hospital mortality rate and hospital and ICU lengths of stay in the same population and subgroups.

Statistical analysis

There was no sample size calculation due to the exploratory, descriptive, and retrospective nature of this study. All cases from March 2020 to July 2021 were considered eligible as long as they met the inclusion criteria and did not meet the exclusion criteria. For descriptive summary statistics, variables are reported as means (standard deviation), medians (interquartile range, 25–75%), or absolute and relative frequencies, as appropriate. Pairwise comparisons using Wilcoxon’s rank sum test with continuity correction and Bonferroni multiple comparison tests were done for all groups according to proportions or continuous variables, as appropriate. IMV and in-hospital mortality rates were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier estimates, and the log-rank test was used for comparisons among the groups. The Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Dunn’s test was applied to assess differences in hospital, ICU lengths of stay and time to invasive mechanical ventilation. The multivariate Cox regression model was applied to adjust the area of impairment on chest CT images to the proportion of lung involvement, the presence of at least one comorbidity and SpO2/FiO2 ratio to the IMV rate and in-hospital mortality in the three groups. The COT group was used as reference for hazard ratios (HRs) and multivariate Cox regression model adjustment. HRs are presented along with the respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were considered significant when p < 0.05, and the analyses were performed in the R 4.0.4 environment [22].

Results

Characteristics of patients with COVID-19

From March 2020 to July 2021, 1371 patients were screened and 958 were considered eligible (Fig. 1); 692 (72.2%) received COT. COT was treated as the reference group (Additional file 2: Table S1). In addition, 92 (9.6%), 31 (3.2%), and 143 (19.4%) patients received NIV, HFNO, and NIV + HFNO, respectively (Fig. 1). Table 1 depicts the characteristics of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the hospital between March 2020 and July 2021 who underwent NIV, HFNO, or NIV + HFNO. Heart failure was more frequent in the NIV and HFNO groups (54.5% and 36.3%) than the NIV + HFNO group (9%, p = 0.003); diabetes mellitus was more prevalent in the NIV + HFNO group (44.7%) than the HFNO group (17.6%, p = 0.048). There were more patients with > 50% lung damage on chest CT in the NIV + HFNO group compared with the NIV and HFNO groups (71.6% vs 13.3% and 15%, respectively; p = 0.038). SpO2/FiO2 ratio was lower in NIV + HFNO compared to HFNO groups (229 [102–317] vs 317 [254–420], respectively; p = 0.001). RR did not differ among group (p = 0.178). ROX index at admission was lower in NIV + HFNO compared to HFNO groups (9.3 [4.9–15.8] vs 16.8 [11–22.4], respectively; p = 0.002). Use of azithromycin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid was higher in the NIV group (35 and 42.1%) and the NIV + HFNO group (48.5 and 31.6%) than in the HFNO group (16 and 26.3%) (p = 0.026 and p = 0.002, respectively). In addition, the use of dexamethasone was higher in the NIV + HFNO group than in the NIV and HFNO groups (57.6 vs 33.9% and 8.4%, respectively; p < 0.001).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of the study. COT conventional oxygen therapy, HFNO high-flow nasal oxygen, NIV non-invasive ventilation. The COT group was used as reference for multivariate Cox regression model adjustment

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the hospital between March 2020 and July 2021
Full size table

IMV, survival rate, and ICU/hospital lengths of stay between the groups

The Kaplan–Meier curve of the probability of IMV over time is depicted in Fig. 2 (log-rank p = 0.012). The NIV, HFNO, and NIV + HFNO groups showed HRs (95% CIs) of 2.05 (1.25–3.37), 1.64 (0.74–3.65), and 3.60 (2.46–5.27) for the probability of IMV, respectively. The rate of IMV was higher in the NIV + HFNO group than in the NIV and HFNO groups in the population at risk (46.8 vs 26.1% and 22.6%, p = 0.002 and p = 0.023, respectively). The Kaplan–Meier curve of the survival rate over time is depicted in Fig. 3 (log-rank p = 0.170). The NIV, HFNO, and NIV + HFNO groups showed HRs (95% CIs) of 1.82 (1.08–3.07), 0.75 (0.29–1.89), and 1.53 (1.01–2.33) for the survival rate, respectively. The survival rate was lower in the NIV + HFNO group than in the HFNO group (63.6 vs 83.9%, p = 0.049). The ICU and hospital lengths of stay were higher in the NIV + HFNO group (15 days [10–25 days] and 20 days [15–30 days]) than the NIV group (8.5 days [5–14 days] and 13 days [10–21 days]; p < 0.001 for both) (Table 2). The time to invasive mechanical ventilation did not differ among groups (p = 0.837) (Table 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Kaplan–Meier curve of the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation rate according to the groups. NIV non-invasive ventilation, HFNO high-flow nasal oxygen

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Kaplan–Meier curve of the survival rate according to the groups. NIV non-invasive ventilation, HFNO high-flow nasal oxygen

Full size image
Table 2 Secondary outcomes
Full size table

Additional analyses of ventilation

The duration of therapy was higher in the NIV + HFNO group (8 days [5–11 days]) than the NIV group (6 days [4–8 days]) and the HFNO group (5 days [4–8 days]; p < 0.001) (Additional file 3: Table S2). The inspiratory airway pressure in the NIV and NIV + HFNO groups was adjusted in the range of 8–10 cmH2O in 51.9% and 48.9% of patients, respectively. The expiratory airway pressure in the NIV and NIV + HFNO groups was adjusted in the range of 8–9 cmH2O in 52.6 and 51.1% of patients, respectively. The oxygen therapy of 2–5 L/min used between ventilatory therapies was higher in the NIV group than the HFNO and NIV + HFNO groups. In addition, more patients in the HFNO group received oxygen therapy of 6–9 L/min compared with the NIV and NIV + HFNO groups (p = 0.003). There was no difference in the highest and lowest values for oxygen flow during HFNO and NIV + HFNO (Additional file 3: Table S2). Overall, the major causes of failure of non-invasive therapy in the NIV, HFNO, and NIV + HFNO groups among patients who needed IMV was worsening of the work of breathing (50.7%). Low level of consciousness was higher in the NIV and HFNO groups compared with the NIV + HFNO group (Additional file 4: Table S3).

Adjusted by the multivariate Cox regression model

When adjusted by chest CT score, the NIV + HFNO group (HR, 3.26; 95% CI 2.12–5.02) was associated with a higher need for IMV. When adjusted by the presence of at least one comorbidity, the NIV (HR, 1.96; 95% CI 1.19–3.22) and NIV + HFNO (HR, 3.44; 95% CI 2.35–5.03) groups were associated with a higher need for IMV. When adjusted by SpO2/FiO2 ratio, the NIV + HFNO group (HR, 2.07; 95% CI 1.35–3.19) was associated with a higher need for IMV. The NIV + HFNO group showed an association for the rate of IMV, even adjusted for all factors (chest CT score, the presence of at least one comorbidity and SpO2/FiO2 ratio) (HR, 1.88; 95% CI 1.17–3.04) (Table 3).

Table 3 Multivariate Cox model for the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation and in-hospital mortality
Full size table

When adjusted by the presence of at least one comorbidity, the NIV (HR, 1.80; 95% CI 1.06–3.04) and NIV + HFNO (HR, 1.54; 95% CI 1.02–2.34) groups were associated with in-hospital mortality.

Discussion

In this single-center, retrospective cohort study, we found that: (1) the rate of IMV was higher in the NIV + HFNO group than the NIV and HFNO groups; (2) the survival rate was lower in the NIV + HFNO group than the HFNO group; and (3) the ICU and hospital lengths of stay were higher in the NIV + HFNO group than the NIV group. After adjustments with the multivariate Cox regression model for comorbidity, chest CT score and SpO2/FiO2 ratio, the risk of IMV in patients on NIV + HFNO remained high.

The presence of at least one comorbidity, chest CT score and SpO2/FiO2 ratio was different in our population, because they may contribute to worse clinical outcomes regardless of ventilatory strategies [9, 23]; correction using multivariate regression models is required. Although age [7] and SAPS-3 [8] are well-known risk factors associated with the need for IMV, we did not observe differences in our population between the groups. For instance, SAPS-3 includes several clinical variables and was shown to be a reliable predictor of hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU during the first wave [8] of the pandemic. Our data may reflect the occurrence of P-SILI [24], regardless of chest CT score and SpO2/FiO2 ratio at admission and the presence of comorbidities, increasing the need for IMV. P-SILI is a life-threatening condition arising from excessive respiratory effort and work of breathing, leading to high transpulmonary pressure and diaphragmatic injury [25]. Positive pressure applied during non-invasive support ventilation can exacerbate P-SILI [26].

We were able to obtain ventilatory variables for 139 of 143 patients in the NIV + HFNO group (3% missing values). We found that 76 patients (54.7%) had an inspiratory airway pressure < 10 cmH2O applied during the NIV period, and 63 patients (45.3%) had an inspiratory airway pressure > 10 cmH2O. In addition, the highest flow adjusted in the HFNO period in the NIV + HFNO group was 48 ± 10 L/min. Although analyzing the hazard threshold during the NIV and HFNO periods was not our objective in this retrospective study, we recognize that these values may be indicative of a higher likelihood of requiring IMV.

Recent physiologic studies have found that high respiratory effort, as measured by esophageal pressure variation and transpulmonary pressure swings, may be associated with a high rate of failure in non-invasive ventilation. Tonelli et al. [27] showed that an esophageal pressure variation of < 10 cmH2O may be linked to a higher rate of orotracheal intubation. Similarly, Grieco et al. [28] found that patients who failed in NIV and required intubation had higher dynamic transpulmonary pressure after 2 h of therapy compared with patients with successful NIV. Our results suggest the importance of identifying patients at increased risk of failure of non-invasive respiratory support due to high respiratory effort [29, 30]. Immediate intubation has been suggested if the PaO2/FiO2 ratio does not improve and/or PaCO2 is < 30 mmHg and/or the respiratory rate is > 28 bpm using accessory muscles for more than 3 h. Colaianni-Alfonso et al. [31] also considered pH < 7.35 as a criterion for intubation, in addition to the other signs. These data suggest that there are no clear guidelines on the signs of failure of NIV.

Despite the variation in exposure time under NIV (from continuous exposure to periods of 2 to 3 times per day), our data show that the total time of therapy (in days) delayed the time to endotracheal intubation, and this can worsen outcomes, mainly when intercalated with HFNO. This reflects that the patient was dependent on some level of positive pressure while not tolerating conventional oxygen therapy between NIV intervals [32]. A previous multicenter retrospective study (COVID–ICU) observed a high risk of IMV leading to a high mortality rate in patients who underwent NIV and/or HFNO [31]. However, a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies and a total of 5354 patients did not show differences in mortality between HFNO and NIV groups [34]. A multicenter, prospective cohort study on patients with COVID-19 showed that HFNO was associated with a reduction in failure of oxygenation without improvement in 90-day mortality, whereas NIV was associated with higher mortality [35]. Although few patients underwent the intercalated use of NIV and HFNO, the authors were able to isolate the effect of HFNO, which was not associated with a reduction in 90-day mortality. Moreover, the NIV group, which was a composite of three conditions, i.e., NIV alone, NIV + HFNO, and NIV + COT, was associated with increased 90-day mortality [33]. In our study, the intercalated use of NIV and HFNO was associated with an increased need for IMV independent of the presence of at least one comorbidity, chest CT score and SpO2/FiO2 ratio. The rate of IMV and mortality observed in NIV + HFNO group herein was similar to a previous study, in Latin America, using combined noninvasive respiratory support therapies within a similar period of time [36]. The intercalated use of NIV and HFNO was associated with the need for IMV, likely due to the following reasons: (1) the use of NIV alone was also associated with an increased need for IMV in the unadjusted models, suggesting that the hazard condition may be associated with its presence; (2) the periodic application of NIV, which may not have met the patient’s ventilatory support needs; (3) few patients were adapted to HFNO alone, which may have jeopardized the comparisons and may reflect that our population had higher respiratory distress and fatigue on admission; and (4) the decision to implement NIV + HFNO took longer than 24 h in some patients, since delayed application of combined respiratory therapy may be associated with worse outcomes [37]. When intense respiratory effort was present, the clinical decision favored implementation of NIV. The intercalated use of NIV and HFNO makes decision-making harder, because it may prolong the time under non-invasive support and give the false impression that the patients do not need intubation and IMV. However, objective indexes and criteria should be applied to help identify the ideal time to stop non-invasive support and consider IMV. All these results raise the question whether these findings apply only to patients with COVID-19 or may be similar in other patients. More studies are needed to investigate the intercalated use of non-invasive support in cases of non-COVID 19-hypoxemic acute respiratory failure.

Our study has some limitations that should be considered. First, due to the exploratory nature of the research, data collection was based on medical records, which may have limited the analyses. Nevertheless, our study may reflect real life with a large sample size. Second, because this is a retrospective, observational, single-center study, causal inference is not possible. Third, data collection took place mainly during a period with no vaccines; the first vaccine in Brazil was given in January 2021. Our data may be particularly relevant in undeveloped countries where the rate of routine immunization for adults is low. Fourth, our sample included a relatively small number of patients under HFNO alone. Fifth, this study encompasses a single tertiary hospital, not a multicenter public hospital.

Conclusion

In patients with COVID-19, NIV alternating with HFNO was associated with a higher rate of IMV independent of the presence of comorbidities and chest CT score. However, due to the study design, residual confounding due to the severity of the disease is likely.

Availability of data and materials

The data sets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

BMI:

Body mass index

CI:

Confidence interval

COT:

Conventional oxygen therapy

CT:

Computed tomography

HFNO:

High-flow nasal oxygen

HR:

Hazard ratio

ICU:

Intensive care unit

IMV:

Invasive mechanical ventilation

NIV:

Non-invasive ventilation

P-SILI:

Patient self-inflicted lung injury

SAPS-3:

Simplified Acute Physiology Score-3

References

  1. Lowery SA, Sariol A, Perlman S. Innate immune and inflammatory responses to SARS-CoV-2: implications for COVID-19. Cell Host Microbe. 2021;29(7):1052–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferreyro BL, Angriman F, Munshi L, Del Sorbo L, Ferguson ND, Rochwerg B, et al. Association of noninvasive oxygenation strategies with all-cause mortality in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2020;324(1):57–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Meng L, Qiu H, Wan L, Ai Y, Xue Z, Guo Q, et al. Intubation and ventilation amid the COVID-19 outbreak: Wuhan’s experience. Anesthesiology. 2020;132(6):1317–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bertaina M, Nuñez-Gil IJ, Franchin L, Fernández Rozas I, Arroyo-Espliguero R, Viana-Llamas MC, et al. Non-invasive ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory failure: a subanalysis from the HOPE COVID-19 registry. Emerg Med J. 2021;38(5):359–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Radovanovic D, Coppola S, Franceschi E, Gervasoni F, Duscio E, Chiumello DA, et al. Mortality and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with non-invasive respiratory support: a rapid review. J Crit Care. 2021;65:1–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Wendel Garcia PD, Aguirre-Bermeo H, Buehler PK, Alfaro-Farias M, Yuen B, et al. Implications of early respiratory support strategies on disease progression in critical COVID-19: a matched subanalysis of the prospective RISC-19-ICU cohort. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):175.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Romero Starke K, Reissig D, Petereit-Haack G, Schmauder S, Nienhaus A, Seidler A. The isolated effect of age on the risk of COVID-19 severe outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(12):e006434.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Metnitz PGH, Moreno RP, Fellinger T, Posch M, Zajic P. Evaluation and calibration of SAPS 3 in patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(8):910–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Barbosa CS, Chaves GWOG, De Oliveira CV, Bachion GH, Chi CK, Cerri GG, et al. COVID-19 pneumonia in the emergency department: correlation of initial chest CT findings with short-term outcome. Emerg Radiol. 2020;27(6):691–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Menga LS, Cese LD, Bongiovanni F, Lombardi G, Michi T, Luciani F, et al. High failure rate of noninvasive oxygenation strategies in critically ill subjects with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. Respir Care. 2021;66(5):705–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pfeifer M, Ewig S, Voshaar T, Randerath WJ, Bauer T, Geiseler J, et al. Position paper for the state-of-the-art application of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19. Respiration. 2020;99(6):521–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Crimi C, Noto A, Madotto F, Ippolito M, Nolasco S, Campisi R, et al. High-flow nasal oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia: a randomised controlled trial. Thorax. 2023;78(4):354–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Perkins GD, Ji C, Connolly BA, Couper K, Lall R, Baillie JK, et al. Effect of noninvasive respiratory strategies on intubation or mortality among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and COVID-19: the RECOVERY-RS randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2022;327(6):546.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Battaglini D, Robba C, Ball L, Silva PL, Cruz FF, Pelosi P, et al. Noninvasive respiratory support and patient self-inflicted lung injury in COVID-19: a narrative review. Br J Anaesth. 2021;127(3):353–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vetrugno L, Castaldo N, Fantin A, Deana C, Cortegiani A, Longhini F, et al. Ventilatory associated barotrauma in COVID-19 patients: a multicenter observational case control study (COVI-MIX-study). Pulmonology. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pulmoe.2022.11.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Elabbadi A, Urbina T, Berti E, Contou D, Plantefève G, Soulier Q, et al. Spontaneous pneumomediastinum: a surrogate of P-SILI in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Crit Care. 2022;26(1):350.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Frat JP, Thille AW, Mercat A, Girault C, Ragot S, Perbet S, et al. High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(23):2185–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Vandenbroucke JP, Poole C, Schlesselman JJ, Egger M. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Hansell DM, Bankier AA, MacMahon H, McLoud TC, Müller NL, Remy J. Fleischner society: glossary of terms for thoracic imaging. Radiology. 2008;246(3):697–722.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Franquet T. Imaging of pulmonary viral pneumonia. Radiology. 2011;260(1):18–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. World Health Organization. Living guidance for clinical management of COVID-19. WHO/2019-nCoV/clinical/2021.2). https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/349321/WHO-2019-nCoV-clinical-2021.2-eng.pdf?sequence=1.

  22. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jacobs J, Johnson AK, Boshara A, Hunt B, Khouri C, Cruz J, et al. COVID-19 health inequities and association with mechanical ventilation and prolonged length of stay at an urban safety-net health system in Chicago. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(10):e0258243.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Schifino G. Effects of non-invasive respiratory supports on inspiratory effort in moderate-severe COVID-19 patients. A randomized physiological study. Eur J Intern Med. 2022;100:110–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Cruces P, Retamal J, Hurtado DE, Erranz B, Iturrieta P, González C, et al. A physiological approach to understand the role of respiratory effort in the progression of lung injury in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):494.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Weaver L. High risk of patient self-inflicted lung injury in COVID-19 with frequently encountered spontaneous breathing patterns: a computational modelling study. Ann Intensive Care. 2021;11:109.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Tonelli R, Fantini R, Tabbì L, Castaniere I, Pisani L, Pellegrino MR, et al. Early inspiratory effort assessment by esophageal manometry predicts noninvasive ventilation outcome in de novo respiratory failure. A pilot study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(4):558–67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Grieco DL, Menga LS, Raggi V, Bongiovanni F, Anzellotti GM, Tanzarella ES, et al. Physiological comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and helmet noninvasive ventilation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(3):303–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zampieri FG, Ferreira JC. Defining optimal respiratory support for patients with COVID-19. JAMA. 2022;327(6):531–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Reyes LF, Murthy S, Garcia-Gallo E, Merson L, Ibanez-Prada ED, Rello J, et al. Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the international severe acute respiratory and emerging infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study. Crit Care. 2022;26:276.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Colaianni-Alfonso N, Montiel GC, Vega ML, Mazzinari G, Alonso-Inigo JM, Grieco DL. Helmet vs facemask CPAP in COVID-19 respiratory failure: a prospective cohort study. Chest. 2023;163:341–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Coudroy R, Frat JP, Ehrmann S, Pène F, Terzi N, Decavèle M, et al. High-flow nasal oxygen therapy alone or with non-invasive ventilation in immunocompromised patients admitted to ICU for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: the randomised multicentre controlled FLORALI-IM protocol. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e029798.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Marti S, Carsin AE, Sampol J, Pallero M, Aldas I, Marin T, et al. Higher mortality and intubation rate in COVID-19 patients treated with noninvasive ventilation compared with high-flow oxygen or CPAP. Sci Rep. 2022;12:6527.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Peng Y, Dai B, Zhao HW, Wang W, Kang J, Hou HJ, et al. Comparison between high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2022;16:17534666221113664.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. COVID-ICU Group, for the REVA Network, COVID-ICU investigators. Benefits and risks of noninvasive oxygenation strategy in COVID-19: a multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals. Crit Care. 2021;25:421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Colaianni-Alfonso N, Montiel G, Castro-Sayat M, Siroti C, Laura Vega M, Toledo A, et al. Combined noninvasive respiratory support therapies to treat COVID-19. Respir Care. 2021;66(12):1831–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Teran-Tinedo JR, Gonzalez-Rubio J, Najera A, Lorente-Gonzalez M, Cano-Sanz E, De La Calle-Gil I, et al. Effect of the early combination of continuous positive airway pressure and high-flow nasal cannula on mortality and intubation rates in patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome. The DUOCOVID study. Arch Bronconeumol. 2023;59(5):288–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Lorna O’Brien (authorserv.com) for editing assistance.

Funding

The Brazilian Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) funded research projects and scholarships for students; Rio de Janeiro State Research Foundation (FAPERJ) funded research projects and scholarships for students; Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) funded publication costs and scholarships for students; and the National Institute of Science and Technology for Regenerative Medicine/CNPq funded research projects.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Pulmonary Investigation, Institute of Biophysics Carlos Chagas Filho, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Avenida Carlos Chagas Filho, 273, Bloco G-014, Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 21941-902, Brazil

    Amanda Pereira da Cruz, Gloria Martins, Victoria Marques, Samantha Christovam, Patricia Rieken Macedo Rocco, Fernanda Ferreira Cruz, Cynthia dos Santos Samary & Pedro Leme Silva

  2. D’or Institute of Research and Teaching, Barra D’or Hospital, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Gloria Martins

  3. AAC&T Research Consulting LTDA, Curitiba, Brazil

    Camila Marinelli Martins

  4. Department of Cardiorespiratory and Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy, Faculty of Physiotherapy, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Victoria Marques, Samantha Christovam & Cynthia dos Santos Samary

  5. IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy

    Denise Battaglini, Chiara Robba & Paolo Pelosi

  6. Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy

    Chiara Robba & Paolo Pelosi

Authors
  1. Amanda Pereira da Cruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gloria Martins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Camila Marinelli Martins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Victoria Marques
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Samantha Christovam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Denise Battaglini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chiara Robba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Paolo Pelosi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Patricia Rieken Macedo Rocco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Fernanda Ferreira Cruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Cynthia dos Santos Samary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Pedro Leme Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

APC, GM, and PLS had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. APC, PRMR, FFC, and PLAS contributed to the concept and design. APC, VM, SC, and CSS contributed to the methodology. APC, VM, SC, and PLS contributed to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data. APC, DB, CR, PP, PRMR, FFC, and PLS drafted the manuscript. DB, CR, PP, and PRMR critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. CMM did the statistical analysis. APC and PLS supervised the study. PP, PRMR, and PLS obtained funding. GM provided administrative, technical, or material support. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro Leme Silva.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The protocol of the present study was approved by the Co-substantiated Ethics and Research Committee of the Research and Teaching Institute D’or, on 3 December 2021 (CAAE: 52534221.5.0000.5249).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

Figure S1. Description of interventions. COT, conventional oxygen therapy; HFNO, high-flow nasal oxygen; NIV, non-invasive ventilation; RT–PCR, reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction.

Additional file 2:

Table S1. Characteristics of patients with COVID-19 who underwent conventional oxygen therapy in the hospital between March 2020 and July 2021.

Additional file 3:

Table S2. Ventilatory variables during NIV, HFNO, and NIV+HFNO.

Additional file 4:

Table S3. Causes of failure of non-invasive therapy in the NIV, HFNO, and NIV+HFNO groups among patients who needed invasive mechanical ventilation.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

da Cruz, A.P., Martins, G., Martins, C.M. et al. Comparison between high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) alternated with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and HFNO and NIV alone in patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study. Eur J Med Res 29, 248 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-024-01826-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-024-01826-3

Keywords

European Journal of Medical Research

ISSN: 2047-783X

Contact us